The Corby conviction: not an open-and-shut case

Page Tools

Australians must weigh their sympathy for Schapelle
Corby against broader issues.

The conviction of Schapelle Leigh Corby needs to be considered
in contexts other than the apparently popular belief in Australia
that she is innocent. The case was tried against the backdrop of a
spiralling drug problem in Indonesia, where drug addiction has
almost quadrupled over the past two years. Last year there were
7410 drug trafficking cases compared with just 1833 five years
earlier. A developing country with highly porous borders, Indonesia
finds itself at the crossroads of a flourishing international drugs
trade, largely run by foreigners.

Unfortunately for Corby, the court of popular appeal in
Australia carries little weight in Indonesia. Corby alone of the
many Australians in overseas prisons, some facing the death
penalty, has captured the imagination of the nation. This is in
part because her case occurred in Bali - a place familiar to many -
and because she is in many respects seen as an
"ordinary"Australian. But whatever empathy many Australians may
feel for the plight of this young woman, it is on balance difficult
to be critical of the integrity of the process that yesterday
convicted her to 20 years in prison. That hasn't stopped many
commentators and her supporters from simply attacking the
Indonesian legal system and judiciary as being inadequate, if not
inherently corrupt.

There is a curious double standard at work here. This is not
only the same system but the same court that was widely praised in
Australia for having delivered justice in the case of the Bali
bombers less than two years ago. It seems that while many
Australians were satisfied with those convictions and even the
imposition of the death penalty against Indonesian citizens, the
same court was somehow considered incapable of trying an Australian
in a far less complex drug trafficking case.

Corby's conviction itself can hardly have come as a surprise.
Found in possession of 4.1 kilograms of marijuana at Bali's
airport, her defence boiled down to a plea of "it's not mine". Much
of the confusion surrounding the Corby case has focused on the
differences between the Australian and Indonesian criminal justice
systems. Criminal proceedings in Indonesia require the prosecution
to prove a prima facie case to overcome a statutory presumption of
innocence favouring the accused. The defence can introduce evidence
to rebut the prosecution's case. Yet Corby's legal team advanced
little material of persuasive value. It failed to vigorously pursue
the biggest flaw in the prosecution case - the lack of fingerprint
or other forensic evidence linking Corby to the drugs. Instead much
weight was placed on the hearsay evidence of a Victorian remand
inmate, John Patrick Ford, who testified that he overheard fellow
prisoners saying an Australian-based drugs ring placed the package
in her luggage. The defence team went on to introduce a range of
other material of limited evidentiary value. Based on the evidence
before it, the Balinese court had little choice but to convict.
This is not the end; an appeals process remains.

The Corby case will have a number of ramifications, both within
Australia and for relations with Indonesia. The case has also
served to focus attention on the systems in place to monitor
baggage handling and security at Australian airports, which have
been found wanting. And the intercession by Australian Federal
Police Commissioner Mick Keelty, whose comments questioned the
veracity of defence evidence, was unwise and inappropriate. As for
Corby being repatriated to Australia, any move to a prisoner
exchange agreement with Indonesia must be on the basis that it will
apply to all prisoners, not her alone.

Whatever spin the Australian and Indonesian governments put on
the present strengths of bilateral ties, the Corby case is yet
another indication of just how fragile and shallow this
relationship remains. At a government-to-government level, it is
vulnerable to relatively minor jolts; and it was tested by
sometimes erratic former president Soeharto, the deaths of
Australian journalists during the 1975 East Timor invasion and the
1999 intervention there by the Australian military. The Corby case
is the latest in a succession of flash points. The test, for the
Australian Government in particular, will be to stay the course in
the face of populist outrage. Australians, meanwhile, need to be
clear about the difference between sympathy for Corby's plight and
the mutual respect a mature relationship between Australia and
Indonesia demands.